away and there's nothing for us. we come down here and get no civil rights lawyers and i'm upset. speck at the end of the day we were screwed and we allow us to let people come into the community and reap our benefits. over $90 million was spent many in amount of time. no million dollars fillmore center is going to make a $5 million deal at the end of the day we've got nothing. how can you sit up there and talk about blacks business. we obligate going to cry about abruption from someone's is

getting revenue. we need to have someone represent us >> ken johnson. >> i'm with the last speaker and also i'm in support of the kristen hayes and the jazz heritage center but i'm looking at the oc and the club. we have manager relay the very development agency devastated the community and you fwiedz ca have to be careful because people are mad bethat we get nothing they spend offer $90 million and the community

got nothing. look at the fillmore it used to be crowded with black businesses we had something. i'm a native san franciscan you know and i just hope you guys and i wanted to ask you not to this this november 25th let the community submit some ideas to this oversight committee and side what we can come up where we can higher our own. we have business minded people who can run those businesses and hold off on november 25th and let the community gives up something to come up with a proposal for the o convicts e she's to hire our people. did none of the people get hired

in none of those businesses harder but the community needs some ideas about how to depose of those properties >> thank you. >> we are stopping. >> did we still call the public speakers? >> i see we can take two more and we are going to closeout. two more than close out public comment for this item >> daniel 0 for the record to the audience back home. we conducted a meeting a few days ago and we got american people overview to make a long

story short this is one of the things that's criminal. for years now the community is somewhat at the table when i think it benefits the agency and investors. and at the end of the day i've tripod personally along with other organizations to sound an alarm when the heritage was built. one which the key reads heritage means is birthright and that's to who. is that for the japan town or african-americans, black people in san francisco that's could he. because this is like making a cake without eggs when you don't include black people at the table we're talking about the birthing right of a project intended like being, you know, at the show down at the last

alley month this is the last fight for the property in our area and it needs to be taken serious. i've been in supervisors meetings it's an afterthought when it comes to our community. notwithstanding i hate to see us fighting amongst each other because someone may get a crumb on tuesday and a promotion on wednesday so i'm not here to knock anyone i'm here to say we've got to find a way to make sure the community it involved in moving forward >> (calling names). >> hello.

i happened to be part of two organizations here. i've worked with two of them the jazz heritage center and at the shipyard. for the last year and a half or so i've put together exhibits in the lush likening like gallery that have been wonderful in the community. it brings artists local artists to a community where people don't have the opportunity to see how this actively make a living doing their art. the duty i didn't healthy was one of the people i wanted young

people to be involved in that. i think from that prospective it's an extremely important spaced every artist who walks into the gallery they think it's a beautiful plays. i'd like love to be part of what's going on hero. it's valuable because the arts are important to all of us. they're the art teach us to think beyond the obvious and create the einstein's and you know the guy at apple who's name my older brain can't went at the momentum. steve jobs. if you can't think beyond the box you can't do anything. those of us who have studios at hunter point h have had an amazing opportunity to create

and do our art. without the idea of being injured or run out because we can't afford the spaces if and when the new building is built and those rents are considerably more than what we're paying that community will be destroyed. they're maybe a few artists that can stay but i'm not one of them >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment on this item please bring up a card. >> (calling names) >> steve chair thank you, commissioners and happy holidays. let me just say that it's a

cripple at the crutch. one thing my grandfather told me was the young is his hair but the older is the strength. i'm also remind in 1967 we looked at a particle that was sold for $1.52 or 53 acres people's temple jim jones. the other day that happened. i'm reminded there's a lot of seniors that deserve a place to go to be entertained. they have facilities in the community to take care of seniors evidence and do a very good job. but i haven't seen the facility being used by the seniors and lo

low-cost to forbode their families that come. there are a few facilities in the area you have the bayview hunters point multiple purpose place. i hope that if you are able to include those that really did the job that they be allowed to have access so far as affordability to put on their fundraiser to teach the next generation that came behind them the mind is a terrible thing to waste. hopefully, you'll consider that in your up-coming future >> thank you very much everyone thank you for your complimentary

i want to make a comment. i'll call for your comments on the long rankle property plan. this is a plan and the purpose is to say for all the assets that the successor agency still is in control of what is their plan important gopgs up e.r. ever to sell for enforceable goings-on. there is no final plan once properties have been in particular prapts properties r that are transferred to the city for governmental purpose there's no plan after that. that's a collaboration between the agency because the agency has the experience and the resources to really fully understand the deposition of the assets in the community in the

long run and the city department or other authorities those assets are transferred to. so again, there's no final plan, you know, to transfer them to the city and a number of things could happen but that's not the purpose of this long-term plan. i want to open it up for commissioners. first any questions about the long-term property plan >> yeah. that i are they just, you know, wanted to make sure we should involve all the community when giving the properties back to the city and especially in the western edition. and in the other thing i have a question for you. in the jewish museum you have a right on the top he, you know,

under the you know the separate preschooler what are we talking about where the proceeds are going to >> you said the proceeds we're not getting anything. >> the reason it's zero ate an estimated value it's not been appraised but the reason we put zero when the jewish museum was built the development rights above the building were sold for the financing of the construction and then the particle below is not assessable there's nothing you can do but use it for storage. >> who sold the air rights above the museum. >> well, the successor agency this of the part - there was a number of development rights

there was a challenge while the jewish heritage was being constructed so the rights were sold as part of financing the construction to the nourish u jewish mutual. >> thank you before i close i want to recognize my colleague. >> thank you. >> any questions. >> i have a question on the community meeting of the western edition i believe i said november '89 can you give us a favor of the topics covered and the conversation. i want to make sure we're on the same page >> it was mr. landry called

that meeting it had a board agenda. it had part of the find it was to have a better rnd about the decision plan for the garage in the fillmore heritage particle. it was a meeting more broadly to discuss i think african-american businesses in the fillmore in general. it was a two hour meeting so profoundly three-quarters of that was spent on the topic and a third on the heritage center. i know that someone's from the association were there and is from supervisor london breeds office >> the topics in respect to the deposition of property we have

jurisdiction over and those impacts you currently on the ability of african-american businesses to continue sustaining their presence in the strict. i see those as straight and integrated issues that it troubles me with have an important topic i guess is not in the jurisdiction of this commission with respect to the historical issues but i would like to be able to answer some of those questions. it doesn't seem like the community has a basing placed to go to have the questions addressed. it's frustrating to hear you know be more than angst anger and not being able to respond directly. i don't want people to think

we're not listening >> again i don't want to speak for daniel landry but one the outcomes i replacement is the vay brown from supervisor london breed office you don't want the city - basically, the african-american businesses on fillmore has to costa mesa come from the community and an action plan not only for sustaining businesses and that action plan has to evolve organic from the community and be prepared to the city for implementation and that was kind of at least that was kind of where i thought - this was just one meeting there will b

bes again daniel landry is here and can say that again more about it. >> i have a thought think that, you know. i am not sure how much i agree with that conclusion. i'll focus on i think there are two separate issues and the reason why i haven't addressed this but we should spend time in the comedies on those topics there nodes to be another forum so those items can be addressed and not just vented. i don't want to take away from the real authorized to talk about the deposition of certainty property and property that haven't developed.

so my suggestion would be to if we want to get involved in this is to find a way to formulate the issues in a way that another body can be put together specifically to tackle that issue not only as a form for preventing but to have a solution to deny the problem what is it your exactly trying to solve is it about african-american businesses or the failing corridors the minority background. i think we should put together how in another dmiths or another body maybe it's at the research principal or something we need to getting get from the community but this is the place for that. we do have actual business with the deposition of property we have authority over and i want

people to have the right viewpoint and a unfortunately over the last year and a half this is the venue for many of those concerns and just to comment because we're cognizant about the jurisdiction we have appropriately under deposition law intervened by the way, of the example there are charges due for this particle and the brown's that are part of the commercial partly because of elevators bankruptcy the particle issue was parted of the mixed utilities development and this was a burden we're the

property owner we pushed down those to the developer and so on. because of a number of hurdle also certain payments were not getting made. so with the approval of the oversight board and through the approval the board we paid those fees which totaled $120,000. but those are ongoing we don't know if the developer and the sub lessees will be able to make those payment we've button it on the schedule but that's a subsidy but those tax dollars are going for that person. we'll have that going as a prosperity owner until the property is transferred to the city or the city can make those

policy choices as well >> i just have one comment. there's something between having that commission now just saying hopefully, the commission will come up with something and clearly it hadn't happened in the past. i think there needs to be another venue with authority to actually solve help with some of the issues >> the only comment i'll make is, you know, it sounds like time is of the essence and with the respect of the community in san francisco their undergoing tremendous change and hunter point and mission and if we wait

too long and i say we the collective

>> i think there's time in between now and the actual transfer or whatever we decide to do to hold the hearing or get some community folks together to make recommendations or see for it that we're doing our duty to make sure that these properties are

>> those depend on the timing of the private development so it's a very fluid thing so from the heritage center that one, again, is more contingent on the results of the bankruptcy process, whether a workout deal can be reached and if it's reached that transfer to the city could happen as soon as it could happen, but if the work ideal wasn't reached and the city decides to foreclose, then again, there would be a period of time, but, you know, an interim use would have to be put in to sell it as soon as possible. for the fillmore heritage center that's what we're proposing for the state right

now for the plan. we're not talking about the foreclose you to the state assuming the groundly stays in place so if that stays in place there's ongoing property management associated with that ground lease. assuming the state approves that plan. >> that actual transfer will come be before this body before it goes to the city, correct? >> i would assume so. this is all unchart ered territory, but i'm assuming before a transfer happens we'd bring it before you. >> the commission would have to approve the specific disposition so this is the umbrella, the overarching plan

and the last item on the agenda is a specific disposition for a ground lease, so it's part of the plan, but part of a specific disposition. >> let me try to answer what i think was your actual question. part b was there /stk*rb i -- i think what you're asking for is how are we formalizing the collaboration process with the city? we can approve disposition. once it's disposed of the to the city, right now we're not talking about what happened. so for example, there's plans, there's different models, we've seen some analysis, but all we're seeing is it will transfer as a single entity to the city and we have some assurances from the city as a family that they will keep it as a single entity and come up with some sort of model to

manage it in the future. right now we don't know what that model is and right now we don't have a formal way to collaborate with the city to say here's what we think you should do. we can say that, but right now it's just transferred and then the city /tkoz something. >> yeah. >> i think what's necessary outside of this process figuring out how to formalize our collaboration in a way that it become a regular part of our public process so it's not just where we dispose of assets and we have no idea what happens afterwards. >> yeah. >> i think we can do that, that's not part of this, not meant to be part of that process, but we can do that. >> absolutely. >> madam chair. >> yes. >> why can we as a commission then, make sure -- i know we

have to approve this thing if this is a plan. why can we as a commission then, ensure, and if it's possible that the community is involved. and i know that there's going to be a transfer later on to the city, but i just want to make sure that the community's recommendations are heard and that we listen to their recommendations and somehow input is there. is there a way we can approve this with the caveat that we have a proctor before? i feel that we're approving things. we're inheriting thing s and approving things, but now we have to do all this work, that we are forgetting that the community's involved. their families are impacted and what i'm hearing from the community is that we need to

take some action and need to at least reassure them that what they're saying is going to be thoughtfully discussed and thoughtfully included in whatever actions we do. >> two answers to your question. first one is the resolution 53, 2013 that we actually have to approve or not approve as the case may be today, did we get a ride line version of this? did we do that executive director? >> not yet. maybe we will. >> yes we will. let me finish the two parts to that question. the first part is the reason i ask the question is because the resolution was because there were some last minute text to say we strongly urge the city to include resident concerns and community process in their final disposition plans. at